Skip to main content

About your Search

20121116
20121116
STATION
CNN 16
CNNW 16
MSNBC 11
MSNBCW 11
KPIX (CBS) 5
WUSA (CBS) 4
CSPAN 3
FBC 3
WRC (NBC) 3
WMAR (ABC) 2
CNBC 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 1
WJLA (ABC) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 97
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 97 (some duplicates have been removed)
, and ambassador susan rice come over a two-week period. catherine herridge learned today that neither the director of national intelligence, nor the acting cia director, was responsible for repairing preparing a report that partially blamed the benghazi attack on amateurish youtube anti-islam video. they claim the president obama pressed upon the american people and upon the united nations general assembly. he was push hard to explain what caused them to push the youtube video three days after that attack. the chief said simply he was not at the betray -- petraeus briefing and had nothing to say. there was demonstrable and incurable evidence of their involvement and no evidence of anything other than a terrorist attack. and the administration continued to press its false tale, despite fox news reporting and they reported within 24 hours, u.s. intelligence agencies monomania that the attack was an act of terrorism with ties to al qaeda, but had also identified and located one of the leaders of the attack. despite warnings hours before, state department e-mails reviewed two hours into the attack tha
, therefore, not in the much talked about talking points that susan rice and others refer to publicly where there was a lot more focus on the potential for a spontaneous demonstration, the video, that kind of thing. that the piece of this puzzle that was more clearly known by the intelligence community of the involvement of terror groups was classified. in part that could be argued as a protection required in order to try to pursue them, that kind of thing. that is new information today, and it helps to show us how there might have been two tracks happening all along. the public statements that were reflecting part of what they may have known. the real question is, if they knew it was terrorism all along, was there too much suggestion that a video or demonstrations may have been involved? that's what people see very differently often based on their political point of view. >> yes, and it is based on political point of view. the fact of the matter, the information that susan rice was provided and what she indicated on "meet the press" and other programs, that would have been a part of the de
was taken out of the final version that we believe was ultimately given to the u.n. ambassador, susan rice. why was that done? who did this? catherine herridge is live on capitol hill. reporter: that's right. congressional horses tell fox news that there were changes to the cia talking points and that language of al qaeda affiliated individuals was replace -- replaced, which have the impact of minimizing or downplaying the role of al qaeda and another group, al sharia come on the consulate on 9/11. there was also testimony this week that the intelligence community to those talking points and went to an interagency process. so that other elements of the intelligence community as well as input and review by the state department, as well as the department of justice, that eventually made its way to ambassador susan rice. no one commissioner who was the final author of this talking point given to ambassador susan rice, who is on the sunday talk show on september 16 and repeated on multiple occasions that meant david was in response to the anti-islam video and that was a demonstration that had
, the talking points of susan rice saw in the next 48 hours before she appeared on the sunday talk shows said it was mob violence and video. what do you make of that, tucker? >> this was the big revelation of the day as far as i can tell. it's not clear that susan rice didn't see the original talking points, but the administration conceded today all, but conceded, said, flat-out, we know that al-qaeda was involved, and the term al-qaeda was listed in the origin tell againintelligen and taken out. and the administration says al-qaeda or affiliates classified information, so they had to be scrubbed from what was given to congress. and even if you accept that's a legitimate operating procedure, you have to acknowledge that they've intentionally misled, susan rice-- >> who is they? >> susan rice, but clearly the cia knew this. it's inconceivable that the american ambassador to the united nations was sent out on television with totally incomplete information, with talking points that had been basically scrubbed and having no knowledge of what was originally in them. >> is it clear that susan rice
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
cain, who also never forgives, and president obama over susan rice. could it be mccain hasn't gotten over the 2008 election? we're sort of stacking up revenge here on the other side. i got nothing more to say about that. >>> plus spy fall, what we're learning about the affair that brought down the cia chief and perhaps derailed the promotion of the top general. and has been tabloid fodder now for almost a week. >>> and besides complaining about how president obama won re-election by giving away gifts to minorities and young voters, ever wonder what mitt romney has done -- actually been doing since the election? well, david letterman has an idea. >> today mitt romney drew a picture of the house of representatives chamber and gave a state of the union address in front of it. >> and the fourth new entitlement, obama care, we repeal that one. >> message from pretend president romney. >> got a few more of those sugar plums in the side shows. let me finish way book about when we hay hero for a president. this is "hardball," the place for politics. ave to eat it as pt of your heart healthy diet.
by the cia and what was ultimately embraced to am bass sore susan rice. what we mean here is there was a review process and an editing process in which the emphasis on extremist groups, al-qaida, an sar al says sharia was deemphasized in the second version used by ambassador rice. at what point did the former cia director believe that this was an act of terrorism or an act of extremists? a s*r member of the committee told fox a sort time ago was what the director laid off was an evolving picture on intel kwrepbs. >> he reinforced the facts -- in the first 24 hours he felt at that point, or the cia felt at that point that this was a protest as a result of what happened with the film. he clarified that after -- after more information came in there was not a protest. >> reporter: one lawmaker telling fox after the hearing that he did feel that there were discrepancies between the former cia director's statements today about what he said on september 14th, and the recollection of that lawmaker. let's listen. >> his testimony today was that from the start he had told us that th
that hearing to rally around susan rice. >> to say that she is unqualified to be secretary of state, i think, is a mistake. and the way it keeps going, it's almost as if -- >> and the middle east on the brink. israel and hamas exchanging fire as casualties mount. amid talk of all-out war. >> will continue to exercise this prudence and self-restraint while defending our citizens against terrorism. >> opening round, president obama and congressional leaders kick off talks to avoid the looming fiscal cliff. >> what folks are looking for and i think all of us agree on this, action. they want to see we are focused on them, not focused on our politics here in washington. >> the framework that i've outlined in our meeting today is consistent with the president's call for a fair and balanced approach. to show our seriousness we put revenue on the table as long as it's accompanied by significant spending cuts. >> i can say on the part of my members that we fully understand that you can't save the country until you have entitlement programs that fit the demographics of the changing america in the comi
the whole white house. take a listen. >> so when the president says that susan rice was giving out -- talking about the most updated and -- fully documented intelligence that the intelligence community had, that's not true. >> last night the message was that susan rice was disseminating incorrect intelligence and the president is wrong for defending her. now here is mr. king today after an intelligence briefing. >> did he seem concerned that things had been changed? was that surprising to you? >> he seemed to say at the time they didn't realize the full significance of that and that or an unclassified statement it was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. >> petraeus told king today that, quote, for an unclassified statement this was acceptable. again, it's still very vague. dana, to paraphrase the president, republicans got out in front of their own skis on this one, didn't they? >> yes. well, in congress they have a tradition of revising and extending their remarks and i think peter king -- what peter king just said was "never mind." >> what he said earlier, what do we do wit
's comments five days later? why that was still the line of spontaneous -- >> we talked some about susan rice. susan rice got a lot of the same information that we did. i'll make a comparison to colin powell. when colin powell went before the united nations, getting information from the administration on the facts. >> you said that within 24 hours -- [inaudible] this was five days later. >> i said they knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation. >> why wasn't that part -- >> wait, are you finished? what? give it to me. >> in other words, if he knew within 24 hours it was terrorist-related, how come five days later in the talking points for susan rice it still was saying it's a spontaneous demonstration? >> i assume dish didn't talk to susan rice, i assume she received information and he was not a part of briefing susan rice. information coming together with a different agencies that were involved and had jurisdiction, giving information to susan rice or anyone else, including our committee. >> i was following that. you answered the question. >> he was the head of the
nominee. >> these unfair attacks on ambassador susan rice are simply wrong. she had to rely on the intelligence that was provided. i sat here while colin powell provide the the intelligence that he had regarding weapons of mass destruction in iraq. >> then you have the audacity to come here and say why wasn't the protection of these people provided for? and the answer is because you dam didn't provide it. >> the sun doesn't come up until 6:52. the 7:30 a.m. start time for the petraeus hearing on the house side is the earliest hearing. high profile or otherwise that he has ever seen. back to you in new york. >>> peter doocy, thanks. 7:30 they think that it early. come on guys. let's get started. >>> staying with the very serious topic of the benghazi hearings we are going to take a look at who is talking. the video was captured drone surveillance. what it means and the investigation into the attack that killed four americans. >> what it did was confirm the fact that there was a bunch of bad guys who stormed this consulate in benghazi some ca y carrying automatic weapons othe
. that doesn't gel too well together. >> two things came out. susan rice was given talking points and this is what we know and they sent her out on the five talk show. the question remains and james clapper yesterday couldn't answer it and acting cia director morell couldn't tell. who put those talking points and time line who said it is a video. is it state intele, or the white house? one of them has to come on. >> gretchen: maybe it was a fog of politics? >> you are putting the cia deputy in the political world. she got a unclassified briefing. why would the cia give the un ambassador who is representing the white house an unclassified briefing. >> gretchen: she is a spokes person for the united states of america and she has an unclassified briefing? i guess you could argue in the slimmest of margins that you wouldn't want to scare the american people and hide what was really going on and say it was another terrorist attack. >> there is one problem with the whole debate. the day before susan rice went on the talk shows, on the 14th. leon paneta secretary of defense with the defe
the talking points given to susan rice obtained all the intelligence the intelligence community had. without going into detail, there were several reports clearly stating that al qaeda affiliated groups were involved in the attack and were very heavily involved in the attack and that did not make it into the talking points, did not make it into the final talking points that were given to congress or to susan rice even though they were in the original talking points. that's a real issue as to why that was taken out. and i just feel that there are still many unanswered questions as to who actually put the final version of the talking points together. that was not answered today. >> congressman king, you have been tough on susan rice based on the fact that she went out on tv and what she said but tonight it sounds like you're saying she wasn't given all the information that did exist within the intelligence community. we've just heard also barbara starr reporting that tomorrow, petraeus is going to say he felt it was a terror attack from the get-go but there were other strains of intelligence.
giving its best initial assessment to dr. susan rice who then gave that assessment to the public on behalf of the white house and then the assessment changed on the part of the cia. i'm not sure what the scandal is but i've heard words like watergate being thrown around which i think goes a step too far and is too political. >> cameras did not catch petraeus arriving this morning even though there were reporters staking out every possible entrance and all we saw was a black car leaving his home early this morning. "the washington post" is reporting also here that the hearings are being held in secret committee rooms used for discussion on national security matters. what do you think this says about how petraeus is viewed on the hill? >> well, i don't know what republicans, whether they're fishing for a scandal or not but i'm fishing for answers. there's no doubt that the public was given misleading and wrong information at the beginning by susan rice. the president was exactly right. she was just reading the talking points she was given by the administration and she was on that s
on the talking points, megan, which came from the cia, the famous talking points that supposedly susan rice relied on, they said talk came from cia, specifically mentioned al-qaeda and that al-qaeda was involved in the attack. and they left the cia, went to a whole process which i believe included the white house, and when the talking points were finalized all the the references to al-qaeda were taken out. >> and a lot to get through. let's start with greg. first of all, and petraeus testified under oath he knew within 24 hours it was al-qaeda or terrorism and this one, the talking points. >> i know, general petraeus is a wrecking crew right now. no one has done this much damage behind closed doors since ron jeremy and the question whether president obama was incompetent or hiding something and now we know, he's incompetent on hiding something. and we know that susan rice on talk shows was a big serving of baloney risotto. >> they protected the president by department the justice saying we didn't think it was important enough or a risk. >> they're covering it up because of the fact there wa
susan rice. he does not know who the author of the final version was and these talking points would be uses as the basis for the statements on sunday talk shows on september 16th that this was spontaneous event and linked to the anti-islam video. lawmakers said they wanted to stay very focused on the attack itself and not the former director's personal problems. >> human nature is what it is but the intent going we'll limit the conversation to the events of 9/11 and forward throughout the rest of the, six, eight weeks ensued since the attacks on our consulate. >> reporter: in addition to what's unfolding here on capitol hill fox news separately has confirmed the cia has begun a preliminary investigation into the former director's tenure at the cia. that would include whether any cia assets or materials if you will were used to facilitate this affair or alleged affair with his biographer, paula broadwell, bill. bill: a lot of people look at this on the outside and look at today as a day where you might be able to settle some things but in all honesty how much will be settled after to
attacks on ambassador susan rice are simply wrong. she had to rely on the intelligence that was provided. ultimately state department personnel have to rely on the intelligence reports they are given. susan rice' integrity, capacity and record are beyond question. >> now, president... obamga has the call to float the name as possible secretary of state, the name of the person who was the actual vehicle used to misinform the american people during this crisis. >> greta: a new internal cia investigation of dave petraeus. a week ago, he resigned after the extra-marital affair with paula broadwell. but today, the sex scandal got weirder. jill kelley told a reporter she had breakfast at the white house on september 28. the claim has not been verified. john bolton is here. good evening, sir. >> good evening. >> greta: first, your overall thought about what transpired on capitol hill, in terms of the release behind closed doors today? >> well, i think the most interesting testimony that has leaked out -- do i have faith the rest of it will leak out in due course, is that the director of nationa
to al-qaeda. this is a significant dwom. it was five days after the benghazi incident when susan rice went on the sunday talk shows an said the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration against an antimuslim video. let's get right to the breaking report right now. barbara starr is at the pentagon. you've been breaking this. tell us what you're learning tonight about david petraeus' testimony on benghazi. >> i've spoken to a source close to petraeus, directly familiar with petraeus' thinking on this matter. petraeus, we are told, wants to go to the hill, set the record straight and tell everything he knows. he will start by saying indeed that he knew almost immediately after that it was ansar al sharia, but there was also confusion. he had about 20 intelligence reports linking the attacks to that video, that anti-islamic video. those reports were disproven, but not until after he had briefed capitol hill. all of this took some time to sort out. that's what he wants to lay out tomorrow. >> and barbara, if he knew, and i know you're saying there were conflicting reports, which we ha
first testified and briefed capitol hill and apparently after ambassador susan rice made those comments. >> that's why it's so significant, it also came after ambassador rice's appearance on the sunday shows, where she is now being grilled by john mccain and others. i'm talking to him in a few minutes. so it's very significant i think what general petraeus believed at the time. it does beg a belief, really, why would ambassador rice go on national television, having had a briefing we believe from the cia, which turned out to be flawed if the director of the cia right away knew this was an al qaeda affiliated group? >> yeah, you know, it's washington, isn't it. i mean, you know, the theory, what petraeus is expected to talk about is he had his talking points. he got them declassified, approved to go out there in public. when ambassador rice started talking from her talking points, this included other information that wasn't exactly what the cia thought might be really going on. i think some members of capitol hill have brought it down to this point, was the obama administration incredibl
.s. ambassador to the united nations susan rice in the aftermath. former cia director david petraeus has been here on capitol hill time and time again. but today before the senate and house intelligence committee is shrouded in secrecy. he may have a blow by blow attack on what happened in benghazi, libya, that led to the death of four americans, including the u.s. ambassador. >> director petraeus went to the people, as i understood it, that were involved. so the opportunity to get his views, i think are very -- is very important. >> reporter: this comes after a day of hearings yesterday into the benghazi attack. most closed to the public, but one was open. and much of the focus is on u.s. ambassador to the u.n. susan rice, who back in september appeared on five sunday morning talk shows with the same talking points, the attacks she said appear to be the work of protestors, not terrorists as it now appears. the implication at the height of campaign season, the president did not want to be responsible for a terrorist attack. >> the arrogance and dishonesty
controversial coming out of these briefings, whether or not susan rice, the u.n. ambassador -- the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., had the proper information or was correct in what she said publicly about the attack being probably at that point four days after the attack because of a demonstration. democrats are really to a person coming to her defense aggressively and trying to explain why there was a discrepancy. listen to kent conrad of the democratic member of the senate health care community. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. that is very clear. >> and susan, dianne feinstein, just moments ago actually took out and read the unclassified talking points that susan rice used on that day, and they were very short. it sounds like there were two, maybe three points in the talking points, and it was almost certain to change.
's assessment, susan rice's assessment or your own assessment? >> i think what we first learned in the few hours and days immediately after the attack to today, the intelligence has evolved. certainly there was taking time to gather the information, to analyze it and put forward an assessment. what we do know is that when director petraeus came before us on the 14th, the information that he gave us was not the information that was put out by ambassador rice or by the administration. so it begs the question why wasn't a more complete picture given to the american public more quickly than it was? >> okay. you said that the intelligence has evolved, which means just from a layman's term, you would think that as they gathered information, they learned more than things would change. just from people sitting at home and not for partisans or for people who are on capitol hill, are you actually talk ing to each other about -- getting to the bottom of this or is everyone just talking at each other because i would imagine no administration wants anyone to die on their watch. >> certainly we are talking to
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 97 (some duplicates have been removed)